Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion

Yes, I can work on the www site, but I will need some time.

I guess there is no schedule defined to the 42.0.0 release, maybe late
december, early january, or there are intentions to be early december?

Regards

Jorge

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> wrote:

> Jorge,
>
> Thanks for bringing this up again. We are going to go ahead with 42.x.x
>
> Any chance you can work on the www site to explain what we are doing and
> which version people should be using ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Dave Cramer
>
> davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com
> www.postgresintl.com
>
> On 27 November 2016 at 09:49, Jorge Solórzano <jorsol(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 27 November 2016 at 08:40, Vladimir Sitnikov <
>>> sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >I'm in favor of that. Even I, as a packager, almost fail all the
>>>> times when I
>>>> see "9.4" there.
>>>>
>>>> Glad to hear that.
>>>>
>>>> I think he did not get we aim for 42.0.0.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am to blame for that, I misrepresented this.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 42.0.0 is greater than 9.4.1212 if compared with maven and/or OSGi
>>>> rules.
>>>>
>>>> 4.2.0 would indeed be a problem, so the suggestion is 42.0.0
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, I'm going to post this to hackers with the proposal that we go to
>>> 42.0.0
>>>
>>> I'm sure that will generate some comments.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ​+1​
>>
>>
>>
>